Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II Review

One of the most exciting cameras that debuted in 2012 was Canon's PowerShot G1 X. It featured a 1.5" sensor (which is only 20% smaller than APS-C), 28-112mm lens (albeit a moderately slow one), fully articulating LCD, and optical viewfinder (a rarity at the time). The result was one of the first semi-pocketable cameras to offer image quality that rivaled that of interchangeable lens cameras. The G1 X was far from perfect: the lens' maximum aperture range of F2.8-5.8 wasn't great, AF performance and minimum focus distance were disappointing, continuous shooting rates were poor, and battery life was downright lousy.

With the 'Mark II' version of the PowerShot G1 X, Canon has addressed many of the shortcomings of its predecessor. For a start, the G1 X II has a faster lens that covers a wider focal range and can shoot much closer to a subject. It also promises a faster, more sophisticated AF system, improved continuous shooting, dual control dials around the lens, and Wi-Fi with NFC. The LCD has also been redesigned: it now tilts upward 180° and downward 45° - instead of flipping out to the side - and touch functionality has been added, as well. The camera is also significantly smaller than its forebear, now looking more like an over-grown S-series, rather than an out-sized G12. Something that got sacrificed in all this was the optical viewfinder, but fear not, you can buy a tilting XGA EVF for $300.

Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II key features

12.8 megapixel 1.5"-type CMOS sensor

Digic 6 processor

24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens with optical IS

Dual (customizable) control rings

Tilting 3", 1.04M dot touchscreen LCD

5.2 fps continuous shooting

Maintains same angle-of-view at 4:3 and 3:2

Wi-Fi with NFC with remote control via smartphone

1080/30p video recording

Optional XGA electronic viewfinder

The big story remains the G1 X II's 1.5"-type sensor which is around 5.6 times larger than the one found in Canon's own PowerShot G16. The result is still a fair bit smaller than the APS-C-sized sensors used in Canon's DSLRs, but then the camera is quite a bit smaller, too. It's interesting to compare the EOS-M, which is similar in body size, to the G1 X II: the built-in lens and smaller sensor allow the PowerShot to remain much smaller than the 'M' would be, were there an equivalent lens available.

While the total pixel count of 15 million is the same as on the G1 X, the G1 X Mark II only uses around 13 million (versus 14.3).

The G1 X Mark II's pixel dimensions show that it's cropping from a sensor that's larger than the imaging area, allowing it to offer the same angle-of-view for both the 3:2 and 4:3 aspect ratios - something that the original G1 X could not do.

The 18.7 x 12.4 mm sensor size that Canon has been quoting appears to refer to the 3:2 crop area - the sensor itself is the same size as the one in the original G1 X. To find out more, read our original first look article.

Another significant change on the G1 X II is in the lens department. Gone is the comparatively slow 28-112 equiv. F2.8-5.8 lens on the G1 X - replaced by a much more appealing 24-120mm equivalent F2.0-3.9 lens. The use of a smaller sensor area means these numbers aren't directly comparable, but the new lens is certainly brighter. Where the minimum focus distance on the G1 X was an unhelpful 20cm (and 40cm in most modes), the new lens can be just 5cm away from its subject. Canon has also improved the autofocus system, and claims that the G1 X has the 'the fastest in Canon compact camera history.'

The combination of the camera's fast lens and 1.5" sensor pays big dividends, as illustrated below:

The above chart shows the changes in 35mm equivalent aperture as the equivalent focal length increases. This chart allows you to see the effect of the different aperture and lens ranges, taking into account the different sensor sizes. The G1 X II starts off very well, and bumps into three other cameras (the original G1 X, Sony Cyber-shot RX100 II, and Canon Rebel with kit lens) at 28mm. That doesn't last long, as the G1 X quickly pulls away from all but the Rebel until you reach 50mm, at which point the G1 X Mark II is in a class by itself.

So what does this all mean? Simply put, it means that the G1 X II allows for shallower depth-of-field than the cameras that are 'above it' on the chart. One could also make the assumption that the G1 X Mark II has the potential for better low light performance than the other cameras shown.

Getting back to new features: the LCD has been redesigned and can flip up by 180 degrees (you know, for selfies) and down by 45 degrees. It's also touch-enabled, which allows for all of the controls that you'd expect from such a feature. However, this is a step backwards from the hinged, fully articulated screen on the original G1 X, that made it much more flexible.

While the optical viewfinder from the G1 X is gone (and to be honest, it wasn't very good), Canon offers an XGA (1024 x768 pixel) EVF that attaches to a special connector on the hot shoe and can tilt upward 90 degrees. The bad news is that the EVF costs $300.

One final feature of note shouldn't be surprising in this day and age, and that's Wi-Fi. You can control the camera remotely and send photos to social networking sites, cloud storage, or a computer. NFC (near-field communication) is also supported, which allows you to pair the camera with compatible smartphones by tapping them together.

Specs Compared

As you've probably gathered by now, there are quite a few differences between the G1 X Mark II and its predecessor. The chart below lists the more significant ones:

PowerShot G1 X

PowerShot G1 X Mark II

Effective resolution

14.3 megapixel

12.8 megapixel

Processor

Digic 5

Digic 6

Multi-aspect

No

Yes (3:2, 4:3)

Lens focal range

28-112mm equiv.

24-120mm equiv.

Lens maximum aperture

F2.8-5.8

F2.0-3.9

Minimum focus distance (Normal mode)

40cm (W), 1.3m (T)

5cm (W), 40cm (T)

Minimum focus distance (Macro mode)

20cm (W), 85cm (T)

5cm (W), 40cm (T)

Control rings

None (front control dial)

2

LCD design

Fully articulating

Tilting (180 up/45 down)

Touchscreen

No

Yes

Viewfinder

Optical

No (optional EVF)

Continuous shooting

2 fps

5 fps

Max video resolution

1080/24p

1080/30p

Wi-Fi

No

Yes (with NFC)

Battery life (CIPA)

250 shots

240 shots

With the exception of battery life and degree of LCD movement (and, for some people, the optical viewfinder), the G1 X II has much more impressive specs than its predecessor. You can see the cosmetic changes on the Body & Design page.

Accessories

There's no shortage of extras available for the G1 X Mark II. The most notable are the electronic viewfinder and custom grip.

The EVF-DC1 ($299) is an XGA electronic viewfinder with 2.36 million dots (a 1024x 768 pixel display). As shown above, the viewfinder can tilt upward by 90 degrees. It has a built-in eye sensor, or you can turn it on via the button on its left side. While the resolution of the viewfinder is quite high, the refresh rate isn't nearly as nice as the main LCD.

There will be some people who decry the loss of the G1 X's built-in viewfinder but, given how small and imprecise it was, we feel the option to include of a considerably better finder (or not, if you don't want to spend the extra), is a reasonable alternative. It does, of course, mean that you need to spend more money to get a camera with a viewfinder, but that effective price increase over the G1 X also gains the faster, more versatile lens, smaller form factor and all the camera's other improvements.

Standard grip

Custom grip

Those with large hands may find the G1 X Mark II's grip a bit lacking. Canon offers the GR-DC1A custom grip ($29), which is more substantial. Switching the grip out just involves removing a pair of screws, swapping the pieces, and then screwing the new one back in.

Comments

Someone has been listening in regards to the tendency of the G1X MarkII to shoot at full open aperture when in AUTO and PROGRAM modes. The latest firmware release 1.1 seems to have solved that problem for most outdoor shooting conditions. It also stops down the lens in MACRO, leading to much better results. Before this change, I had to shoot all my MACROs in aperture-preferred mode.

I also have the Mark I version of this camera. The optical quality of the lens on the original was superb wide open in almost all settings. The Mark II lens is a little softer in the corners when wide open and is almost unusable at F2.0 when in MACRO mode. IMHO, the new programming seems to hit the len's sweet-spot better.

Seriously, you sum up by saying the Sony RX 100 produces better still images? It may have more resolution due to a higher pixel count but that comes at a cost, a very slight blurring to compensate for the too many pixels in a 1 inch sensor. At high ISO it loses badly to the G1X II with more noise, increased blurring or smearing. Writer shows his bias to Sony or dislike for Canon. I have used both and the RX is great for a pocket camera but for sheer image quality, don't tell me it's better when it is not.

Always wanted this camera but it was overpriced to me. I had the original G1x and loved the quality of the images but it was a flawed camera, much improved in the mark 2 version. Just bought it for the reduced price of £449 which is a bargain price. I use m4/3 and to just buy the Olympus 12mm f2 lens would cost me over £500, with the Canon G1X ii I have the equivalent of 24-120 with F2 at the wide end and with beautiful bokeh. Makes perfect sense to me. The reported flaws in this mark ii version will not bother me and I'll probably get the viewfinder as I use the VF-4 on my E-P5 Olympus which works better in bright light. I like to travel light these days and the G1X ii will get a lot more use than my DSLR or m4/3 cameras.

High Noise floor? Where did you hear that? I own this camera and have no idea what you speak of. Go to comparometer and compare ir with a Nikon D7000 aps sensor camera and get back to me. Perhaps if you had the camera you would speak differently.

From Canon ? No way ;)It would undercut their reflex full frame sells...you know.the same stupid arguments making them loosing on "serious" mirrorless market.That's why Sony are probably laughing in their corner.I'm not a Sony fanboy (Olympus here), but a SONY A7R II with a nice lens...i'm sold :DSony lacks on the lens side. Unlike Canon ;)

Hi friends! Bought the G1x Mark ii last December and took excelent pictures of Northen Lights, at TromsØ and Svalbard as well.Maybe the battery had been improved, but I´m looking for some better option.I charged battery to full and could make only one time lapsed 16" video, then, battery was down again.Is there any option of better battery to improve it?Thanks!

Even with the CN-NB-12L, you really need two batteries if you're going to be out all day with it. Having it in eco-mode helps a great deal, but if you were steadily snapping all day long, even eco-mode would be pushing it with just a single battery.

This is kind of annoying. I think Canon KNOWS users of this camera will want longer battery life. It's a way to sell their accessories. They make a good camera overall, but then instead of fixing the small remaining problems, they ask us to pay MORE to fix it by buying accessories. Not for me, thanks.

I’m with JP on this one. I own it (rather than reading Spec lists) and I also bought the EVF. Together, allbeit a bit on the pricey side, makes for one heck of a kit. It has absolutely every feature you could want, the Hybrid auto is brill and oh yes the Image quality is superb… isnt that what its all about.

I recently purchased a G1X MarkII after my original G1X failed. I have not fully explored all the features but the upgrade in features is considerable. The main initial difference noticed is the battery. Less than half the size and more than twice the capacity.

I'm looking to mount this on a DJI S800 copter. Can I control the shutter for still shots and the video on and off remotely through a Futaba transmitter that I'm now controlling a Sony Nex 7? Also can I send the pix to a remote video so that I can see the image from the camera to a monitor or my Nexus 7 or my Ipod?

I'm looking for an upgrade of my travel camera from the Nikon P500. I've narrowed down to between Canon G1 X mk II and Sony Cyber-Shot RX10.I like the color and larger sensor of the Canon. However, the auto focus problem mentioned in the "Shooting Experience" and "Performance" section of this review concerns me.Does any owner of G1 X II have any experience to share, regarding auto focus, especially in low light situations?

And, though I see your point about the GM5 and 14-42 PZ, that combination ends up being much slower: 28-84mm F7-11.2 equiv, rather than 24-75mm F3.7-6.2 equiv. The LX100 also offers a lot more in terms of direct control than the GM5, given it's solely designed as a photographers' camera.

The DPreview reviewer published video quality comment for the review of the Canon Powershot G1 X MK II states "Low resolution video with strong moiré" and is in direct contrast to the Consumer Reports test of the same camera. CR test results of this same camera state "Video quality is excellent, better than most models" and also from the same CR test is the comment that the camera "is the first advanced model we've tested that had excellent image quality across the board: photos taken without a flash, flash photos, and video. What makes this significant is not just that it scored so high in all three categories, but that it scored higher overall than all our tested SLRs and mirror less models."

Is it possible something was defective in the camera used for the DPreview test? CR is world renowned for the stringent and demanding quality of it's excellent testing procedures. Wy such an opposite result for the same Canon G1 X MK II camera from two highly reputable organizations?

We've seen nothing to suggest that the unit we tested was faulty (I'd expect Canon to get in touch if the results were less good than expected). In terms of video, at least, it's hard to understand how Consumer Reports would draw those conclusions (We couldn't get the camera to produce the resolution we'd expect from 1080 footage).

I don't know how CR tests image quality, but if they don't look at Raw latitude, then that might explain the discrepancy. The JPEG images tend to be pretty nice, from what I remember, but the Raw files don't offer the degree of processing flexibility we've come to expect from modern sensors.

Remembering my Fuji X-S1, which was very good with portraits, but fuzzy on the long end, I realise the uselessness of this test scene, if it only shows the lens at one given focal length. Indeed, it may be showing the camera at it's best, at it's worse, or somewhere between, and this would be the case for most, but completely random from one model to another, whether it's showing it at it's best or worse.

@dpr: btw... for a test scene, try and keep the objects in the same position, will you? (I see the bottle has been rotated, and not all items seem to appear in the same spot from camera to camera.

@nomorefilm it was the samples gallery that allowed me to discover the very very very severe CA in the G7X in many situations. deplorable optics. but when you are trying to evaluate some of these fixed-lens cameras, and compare which is a better buy, samples isn't the best of solutions. (although in the case of the g7x it was - but that is only because some of the pics I saw were so bad, that comparing with other cameras was not required).

Whenever I look to buy a new camera, I can never find all I want to know on one site. After I decide what performance / features are important to me, I look for that information on every possible internet camera review site I can find, and in photo and other magazines doing tests (showing actual data / images / COMMENTS on use experience [e.g. sharpness at focal length extremes / noise at ISO extremes]), etc. Usually, that does the trick.If that still is not enough, I buy the camera from a company that has a return policy, or as in my local lab/store, I can rent the camera with a credit towards purchase, to test the camera myself.So far, even though it can be a lot of work and time consuming, that's always worked for me for the eight more expensive cameras I've purchased successfully so far over many years, and especially for the several that I decided not to buy!I apply the same system to lenses as well.

I have only two sites I use - I don't have time to read every review under the sun - especially since the vast majority are severely tainted by advertiser dollars influence, or the reviewers simply are not that specialized in cameras on some of those sites. I always confirm anything they say here with imaging-resource.com and that's it for me. I already know the sellers I like, but most of the cameras I've bought, I got at good prices, and resold a year later for what I paid for them, so no loss there.

For some reason, I never came across that site. I read their review on a camera I bought a about a year and a half ago, and the review checks out perfectly with my experience. I like all of the various info they provide.

@nomorefilmman: imaging-resource is definitely an awesome site, for checking something out more thoroughly, before you actually pay for something. what DPR offers, is more interactivity with the community, as we are doing here right now. that, and a nice black background so easier on the eyes. that's why I like to use both.

@Richard: thanks for the info. but I still feel that you guys should offer the test images in various focal lengths. especially for fixed-lens long zoom cameras, where the optical IQ can vary quite radically as you zoom in and out. I understand that it's more work - of course it is - but it would give a significant boost to the thoroughness of the reviews, more than any works could say.

Went to the store excited to test the camera. Everything went well until I tried to trigger camera by IPad in silent camera mode. IPad remote trigger over rides the camera silent mode and camera "clicks". The camera on it's own trigger was silent. As soon as IPad was triggering it, G1X II was not silent any longer?Does anybody has comment on this or possible remedy?Thank you

posible remedies: * buy android tablet. * wait until apple gets it right. * find (or write) a different appdon't expect the camera, being controlled by something, and doing what it is told, to be able to correct the apple app.

I give this camera a 10/10. I am astounded at the results I got from this camera. I rented this camera for a concert and the photo detail and color and the camera's versatility exceeded my expectations. Even after I cropped the RAW files way down the detail was completely realistic and near perfect. I shot RAW, Super Fine, AWB, manually@ISO 2000, 1/250 sec and used the zoom to 120mm (so I couldn't open up the aperture as wide as I wanted) and the photos showed no lack of brightness at all. The concert lighting/ brightness/colors were constantly changing but the camera handled all of it remarkably well. My regular is a 20D and Sigma f2.8 50-150mm lens for concerts/hockey games and the the G1X MKII equaled or exceeded the photo quality and versatility of my 20D. And the G1X MKII was easy to get acquainted with. I had one day to learn how to use this camera and didn't have any problems. Please view my G1X MKII photos here - https://www.flickr.com/photos/24052589@N07/?saved=1

bah! stop complaining about what one is not doing, if another already offers what you want!!! who cares what label is slapped on the front! isn't what is important, what the camera does? Why is it so wrong that it's not a canon? no one maker has a monopoly on making the awesomest stuff: get used to that, be happy. ;)

blah, blah,blah. . . YOUR assumption.. . the canon reference was just that a for instance. . . I DO buy what 'a' camera does and Not by name plate. I have, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Pany. . . . with more than one of two. . .just depends on what I'm doing. . .

Interestingly, the October, 2014 issue of Consumer Reports Magazine just rated the G1X Mark II as "Our best-scoring camera ever", where it compared 16 Point-and -Shoot cameras for Image Quality, Flash Photos, Video Quality, LCD Quality, and their Viewfinder, after taking the average of scores for each category. Optional Viewfinders were not mentioned in the article.

They state that in THEIR past camera tests, the G1X "is the first to earn an Excellent score for overall image quality as well as flash photos and video", "an achievement unmatched by any SLR or mirrorless SLR-like" (in THEIR past camera tests).

THE ARTICLE DOES STATE, HOWEVER, "That doesn't mean the G1X is the perfect choice for all shooting situations". They mention several "quibbles" with it, and that consumers may have preferences for an SLR, interchangeable lens feature, a superslim camera, or waterproof camera.

So I guess it gets back to what is important to me, with the tests being simply reference info.

I have the G1X (not the II) and have concluded that I will hang on to it until the changes are significant improvements. The G1X really is a handy camera and for simple, daily carry-around use on jobs it does a good job. You cannot get the same boosts in image quality from the RAW image that you might see processing an image from a larger sensor, it offers good quality as it stands. The chief draw back is that it is "pocketable" only in some really big pockets.

I also have the G1X (not the II); I find it takes outstanding quality images (sharp, great color, and low noise), and I also will hold on to it until Canon comes up with improvements beyond the II. The only objection I have with it is that it is slower in focusing and shooting than I expected for a large sensor camera.For action photos, I use the High-Speed Burst feature (about 6 images per second) or the Continuous Shooting feature for slower action (about 2 images per second).The low light performance is awesome, and for me, its numerous features and capabilities leave little to be desired for a dependable high quality carry-around camera (User's Manual has 240 pages of instructions!).

I agree with drdee's and Nomorefilmman's assessments. The G1X is great as long as you know it strengths and weaknesses. It gives comparable images to my APS-C DSLR. The articulating screen is also great.

I like how some people are coming out of the woodwork, quoting consumer websites that evaluate everything and anything, but are experts in nothing. (especially when they say that a tiny-sensor (underwater) or slr may be better for some... sounds completely random to me)

if one compares the IQ against the Sony A6000, obviously the A6000 has the edge but whats interesting is that (assuming the A6000 is tested by DPReview using the 16 50 PZ lens which is far from great) is that the corners of the Mark II photos (even at 100 iso) are very soft in the corners compared to the 1650PZ lens which is very poorly rated for corner sharpness... so how bad is the G1X MkII lens then if its corners are far worse than the crappy 1650 PZ lens from the Sony A6000?? I am really keen on the MkII but have seen reviews moaning about the soft edges (at any FL) which is worrying...

you can get those on amazon and ebay. I wouldn't go for that due to IQ degradation... but if you must, just get the filter adapter that Canon sells, or make one yourself and glue it on (by knocking out the lens from a UV filter) and buy the batching wide-angle adapter.

G1X Mark II has a very bad internal microphone that records a lot of audio noise even in an absolutely silent room. Initially I though that my camera is broken. I could not imagine that Canon put a crappy microphone on 800$ camera with no external microphone connector. But one can hear this noise even on sample videos at Canon's website, http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/powershot_g1x_mark_ii/ . In Morocco video the noise comes from the camera itself, not from background or wind.

The Panasonic GM1 is smaller than this Canon and comes with a nice little 24-64mm equivalent pancake zoom lens. This lens, however, is only of the standard 3.5-5.6 aperture range. You can use the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (90mm eq.) for a bit more range and great portraits.

The GM1 has gotten a very good review on this site and others. However, to get a zoom lens with a brightness that begins to approach the Canon you'd need to move up to the much more expensive 12-35mm f/2.8 from Panasonic or 12-40mm f/2.8 from Olympus. These are a stop slower at the wide angle, but a stop brighter at the tele end. They are also much more bulky and might fit better with a somewhat bigger m43 camera.

The GM1 with some bright pancakes will be very able and compact, but loses some convenience due to lens swapping. I guess the kitlens plus Olympus 45mm f/1.8 make a good travel package for city, landscapes, portraits, museum etc.

hmm, ok, thanks very much for the complete info. I bicycle and skateboard, and really seek something to take long that isn't too bulky, but takes really good pics, and without me needing to carry and swap lenses.

I think many non FF hobbyists must be discounting Canon from their decision-making process by now. Canon's sensor technology is becoming an embarrasment. This is a real shame, since it seems to be the only significant weakness. But you would not buy a film camera that cold only take crappy film, would you?Get it together Canon. You don't want to be the next Kodak, do you?

Of course it's not that bad. I had a big print-up last week of various photos from the last year or so and many of the best were from the original G1X (near enough the same sensor). It's an excellent sensor, though only if you shoot RAW and process with Lightroom or Capture One. Canon processing tends to lose highlights and compress heavily, which I suspect leads to some of the criticism.

Yeah, sure, Brand X has more shadow detail and Brand Y has better highlights etc. etc. but, in the real world, the Canon sensor is more than adequate to produced brilliant photographs in a huge range of conditions. The difference these days just isn't as much as fanatics will lead you to believe!

I find the lower res kind of old-school and I actually like it, for the larger photosites, which in theory should reduce noise and help better pick up DR. But if it doesn't actually perform better than the rx100iii, for the same price, why bother?

I keep reading that but never see it. As far as I can see, the rx100 does highlights badly and gets noisy quickly but I've never played with the RAW files so don't know for sure what it's potential is. From owning a G1X and downloading and scrutinising many RX100/II photos, I would not consider the RX100 for its image quality compared to a G1X, but might if I was comparing to even smaller cameras.

The resolution difference pretty much doesn't exist in the real world, but the file size difference sure does! For A2 prints, the G1X resolution involves no compromise whatsoever.

Compact, good lens, sensor larger than mft... this can replace my APS camera!

Unfortunately, just no HDR or panorama (although we have software to piece that together on the computer instead of in-camera) - but I don't use those very often anyways. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

If I owned this, I think practicality would have me reaching for this far more often when I step out than any other camera.

Before slagging MFT, check the studio scene for the MKII against any 16mp PEN at 1600 or 3200 ISO - Canon is totally blown away. Pity as the lens spec is exactly what I'd want but the sensor performance is not even state of art.

yeah, I think that was mentioned somewhere, that the sensor is "old" tech. I guess it would be naive to expect Canon to introduce a product that would cannibalize their lucrative DSLR sales. this is probably their loss-leader to get you behind a canon label, hoping you'll stick with the family when you upgrade. I still think this is an aswesome camera to have in your pocket - when I think of all the times I debate whether I bring along my NX20 or not - this thing is easily packaged.

I own the Mark II and also own a Panasonic GF1 which must be going on five years old. I always shoot RAW on both cameras but find I can push the GF1 files far more in post than the G1x Mark II files. So in my opinion the sensor in the GF1 is superior. I think the sensor in this camera is the only thing that lets it down and the extremely slow continuous shooting speed when shooting RAW, only about 1 fps. But that being said I still don't regret buying the mark II.

Can this camera be operated with a wall charger? I want to use it for longer timelapses. I need it to be operating form a wall charger so I do not have to worry about battery dying in longer taking projects.

FWIW, my Mk1 has that little spring loaded cover that allows operation off external power with a special fake battery. I noticed it just the other day. It's on the side of the camera so would be visible on product shots if Mk2 has it in the same place. G7 and G10 have one too, so I don't know why it surprised me.

I have two weeks to make a decision on a new camera. For both budget and mobility reasons I am not interested in DSLR or mirrorless. At this point, it is down to the difference between Canon G1X Mark II versus the Sony RX100 III. Based on reviews and comments, the choice seemed easy: the Sony RX 100 III. I finally looked at the side-by-side studio comparison, however, and I’m surprised to see the Canon seemly doing better (except for moire effects). My interest is mostly architectural photography, with some street, landscape, and sports mixed in. I’m not a portrait or macro guy. I like a clean intuitive interface. Any feedback out there?

I would go to your local camera store and compare the two side by side and take a few test shots with each before making your decision, I found the Rx100 Mark 3 a bit small and fiddley for my big hands, your experience might be different.

If I look at he Raw comparisons the Canon files look sharper overall than the Sony...but the extra pixels may negate the sharper look of the Canon files when compared at the same size. At higher iso's the Canon files clearly have less noise and look quite good in comparison. Still, the Sony sensor is really good when one takes into account that its a high megapixel sensor and only 1inch in size...But the Canon sensor just looks better all round even with less pixels...bigger is still better methinks...Makes one wonder how much better this Canon is than what this review makes it out to be...DP Review was quite disappointed by the 6D and yet in practice its a really good camera at a very good price....

With all the praise going to the Sony RX100 MKIII, I was surprised at how much better the images were for the Canon in the studio samples.

In RAW, the Canon has sharper images and less noise at every ISO settings. And, while it is a personal preference, I prefer the Canon colours (as many others seem to as well).

In JPG, the sharpness seems to be better for the Sony whereas noise and colours are still better on the Canon.

Since I shoot in RAW, and you get an extra 50mm in the lens, and because I can pick up the G1X MKII for $130 less than the Sony right now... I can't really think of a good reason not to get the Canon over the Sony. (I don't shoot video so that isn't important to me). Guess I should try them both out first before deciding but it looks like the Canon will be my next camera.

I got the Mk1 G1X the day it came out (broke my G7, had been looking at the G1X and Nikon 1 variants anyway). Quick count... 24k shots and 276GB later (videos, not raws) I have few regrets - I'm going to sound like an emotive (or worse) type when I say all the technical details I don't really care about any more, and that carries on to the G1X Mk2. I used to worry a lot about corner sharpness, aperture, NR, integer ratio scaling, readout noise and on and on (and that worked out well when choosing a small sensor camera like the G7). But for anything that can take shots handheld in the full moon, the tech specs start to matter less. The main regret I do have though, is that the G1X is SLOOOOW. Painfully, frustratingly slow. Not the AF speed, or burst speed or anything, which is all fine for a P&S - but driving the thing through menus - shoot, review, quickly change something, try to get it back to "seeing" again, and so on. I've lost far too many good opportunities for shots that way.

I've shot well over a thousand images with my Canon G1X, and compared to my Nikon SLR, the menu system seemed easier with Canon's, for me, anyway, after I purchased David D. Busch's guide: Canon Powershot G1X.

The manual helped me be aware of and understand all the various menu paths, so when I had to make a shooting change quickly, I kind of knew in my mind the choices I had without searching, and I was able to change quickly.

Before purchasing and studying the guide, the numerous choices seemed overwhelming, but once I understood the menu structures, I was able to use the menus quickly pretty much from memory.

Yes I've noticed a similar thing after RT(F)M-ing - eg using custom settings can save MF setting and even zoom (on many G series at least). Shortcut buttons can be set (my pref is AFL on "S" button to get around movie focus hunting). There's a lot to discover (and I admit I probably haven't found it all).

But that's definitely not my complaint. It relates purely to the SPEED of operation, not the menu structure (which I find pleasingly similar going back to my IXUS330). I got the fastest SD card I could, but no reduction of "BUSY" (one of many things). It seems there's always some laggey thing happening on screen, and if you press a button during that, it gets ignored. Or press the shutter button to get it to respond, then 2 or 3 seconds later "beep" and it takes a shot and then gets stuck in that cycle...

Don't get me wrong, it's a very nice camera, beats my dSLR in IQ, about as compact front-back as any large sensor zoom camera can be, but I personally find it SLOW (er than a G7).

I have the Busch book (the G1X doesn't even come with a printed manual; Canon must have been copying Apple). Even with Busch's tips, I find the G1X very slow. The image quality is on an SLR level, the sensor is big enough so you can crop if you need closeups, the viewfinder can be ignored but there's no denying it's slow enough to be writing one pixel at a time. I learned to live with the G1X for the images it produces. Except for the image quality, the Sonys are superior in every way.

Actually, one would expect that, given the advantage of using a sensor that is 201% the size of the RX100, the G1X mk2 would be 1EV better in regards to SNR. The results of the comparison tool do not bear this out though. If you set the G1X mk2 to ISO3200 and compare it to the RX100 mk3 at ISO1600 (1EV difference), the RX100 mk3 looks better. So while the sensor is larger, the advantage is smaller than if the two sensors had similar technology/efficiency. This is a result of Canon not spending any apparent effort to match other sensor manufacturers' sensor efficiency. This is apparent even when comparing JPEGs, despite the fact that the Sony JPEG NR engine is among the worst available.

What I was trying to say is that regardless of the technical factors, and considering all the different type photos one would take with a camera, the Sony rx100 III test images just don't look great to me, when I compare to the Canon G1x and G1x II test images.

So in my case, image quality is number one, and I would easily choose the Canon G1x II over the Sony rx100 III.

You are leaving too many other considerations out of your comparison. For instance, the purported resolutions. The Canon has a bigger sensor, but the Sony has a higher resolution. The Sony will have a big gain in quality simply because there's less sensor crosstalk being captured at a lower exposure, if you compare it with the Canon at a longer exposure. Compare them at the same exposure and ISO.

I examined the dpreview sample images of the Canon g1x and g1x mark II, and compared them to the dpreview Sony rx100 Mark III sample images.

The Sony images are not as good as the Canon images in brightness, color, and contrast, it seems to me. They seem rather flat and lifeless to me in comparison.

I own the Canon g1x and have shot well over a thousand images of events and travel; the dpreview sample images are exactly what my images look like.

So if the Sony test images are representative of users' experiences, I myself would be thinking about the next Sony revision, if that type of smaller pocket fitting compact camera were of interest to me.

If good image quality is the objective along with reasonable compactness, I would go for the Canon g1x mark II; right now I'm quite happy with the older g1x, and would buy the mark II if I find that I really could use the mark II faster lens and new viewfinder.

I don't care for small cameras like the sosony. I don't care what features it has. I have an iPhone if I need small. Who carries a camera in their pocket anyway? My phone is smaller than the rx100 so that makes it better.

I had both the Sonys, mk I and mk II. Loved the handling, the interface, the LCD, everything. Except the image quality, which was better than my LX 5 but nowhere near the G1X. Both Sonys had soft corners at the wide setting, with some corners better/worse than others.

I figured small cameras just weren't there yet and I heard the G1X dynamic range was poor (it is) but since the Sonys didn't cut it, I figured I'd try the G1X. The first images from the G1X were so superior to the Sonys (in detail rendering, not dynamic range) that there was no real comparison. Suddenly, the slow operation and the finder which I never used didn't seem that bad.

As much as I love the G1X Mark II, this is one area that Canon made a poor judgement call. If the camera was RX100 size, then I could understand. But since it is larger than that there is no excuse not to have a larger battery. The G16 is about the same size as the G1X Mark II and has a much bigger battery. So why do they give you a big chunky battery on a $450 camera but not on an $800 one? I don't understand the logic there.

Not sure where you have got some of your information.The G1XII uses a NB12L Battery with a capacity of 1910m/Ah

The G16 uses a NB10L which has a capacity of 920m/Ah - certainly not larger or of more capacity than the one used in the G1X II

What I suspect might be happening here is the CIPA test method of measuring the number of shots with flash being used 50% of the time. Chances are that many users would not be using flash like this on a G1XII and although the respective Guide Numbers of the flashes are not stated it may be that the flash on the G1XII is more powerful, and therefore consume more power, than on the G16.

On page 7 in the Raw Improvements section they state that their RAW-processed version of a picture had "less false color" than the corresponding camera jpg. What is "false color"? I've never read that term before.

So do I get this right. Canon created an amazing camera with a great range of functions, large sensor and an excellent fast lens with a very useful range. Canon has done everything to make this camera one of the hottest cameras on the market potentially selling millions of copies, but then why the **** they put such a mediocre sensor in it. At this price range you would expect something better!!!

they are reusing the sensor to death....look at the digital artifacts in all pictures......its completely obselete.......canon attempting to sell bad sensors to willing buyers....it's a bloody trap guys

I hesitated buying a Sony RX10 or Canon G1X MII. what matters most to me is the noise and image quality. And the G1X MII is behind in both jpeg and raw. Have you seen the Comparometer of dpreview? Is that canon does not win anything about the sony. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony...ot-dsc-rx10/11. The weight is less, though. But then I look at this another widget and confuses me: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...g1-x-mark-ii/9 there is not as clear that the image quality sony. Do you understand? Is not it contradictory a link to the other? Does anyone know who is better at high ISO? eg ISO 1600, ISO 3200 .. Who makes better blurs? In short, regardless of the sensor size and price What is better, the Sony Rx10 or Canon G1X MII?

I was in the same situation and finally ordered a G1X Mk2 (I was owning a G1X Mk1). It is true that maybe RX10 is sharper, but size was important for me (a good size I mean, I don't like RX100 because it's too small for enjoying it, but that's my personal feeling).

I also checked the comparometer in imagingresource.com and the difference there didn't seemed to me as much (as I'm not a PRO), so that was the point when I finally decided to go for the Canon.

And also in imagingresource.com, I checked G1X Mk2 against RX100 Mk2 (which is a very common comparison in DPREVIEW opinions, as in RX100 Mk3 preview) and I would say that I don't see that RX100 Mk2 is better than G1X Mk2... RX10 really is a little bit better on sharpness (due to its nice lens). Again, I'm noPRO.

So in my personal opinion, if comparing 2 cameras in different specialized web pages lead to different conclusions, those cameras are not very far away one from the other, so then I chose the one with the best ergonomics.

More about gear in this article

Taking apart a camera isn't for the faint of heart, but if you've chosen to do so you don't have to go alone. Our friends at iFixit publish disassembly guides to empower owners of electronic devices to make some fixes themselves. And who hasn't wanted to see what's underneath the plastic shell of Canon's top-of-the-line compact camera? Read more

This year saw a number of new cameras released in the high-end compact category, and as well as updated versions of earlier cameras, we also saw brand new products, and - increasingly - a shift to larger sensors as a major differentiator. 2014 was the year that Canon moved to the 1-inch sensor format, and Panasonic even managed to fit a Micro Four Thirds sensor into its LX100. Click through for a reminder of the high-end compacts released in 2014, and a chance to cast your vote for the best.

Like any travel photographer, David Julian is happy to carry less gear whenever possible on his trips. With a photo expedition to Alaska on the horizon, he agreed to take the Canon G1 X Mark II for a spin and try it out from a travel photographer's perspective. No doubt it's easy to carry on a long journey, but is it versatile enough to be a traveler's primary camera? Read more

What's so special about the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100? It uses the same sensor as the GX7 but is at a distinct disadvantage not being part of an interchangeable lens system. So why would anyone choose the Lumix LX100 with its expensive body over the flexibility of the only-slightly-bigger Lumix DMC-GX7? Has Panasonic shot itself in the foot? Click through to read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.